tv Washington Journal CSPAN September 29, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
writing about the tea party movement which he says is part of two movements in america today. one that could become really important if the right politician understood how to tap into it. he says that politician needs to develop a plan that starts by asking what is america's core competency and strategic advantage and how we nurture it. we wanted to ask you that question as well. a positive one in tone. what is america's core competency, strategic advantage, and how do we leverage it? here is tom friedman's column in "the new york times" today. i want to explain that line. he calls it the teakettle's movement. he says there are two tea party movements.
here is where we get to the part of the question. a democratic pollster told me when he does focus groups, this is what he hears -- people think this country is in trouble and countries like china have a strategy for success and we don't. here is where our question came from. this is tom friedman writing and "the new york times."
that is tom friedman's cancer. and our question for you to answer this morning is what is america's core competency in your mind. if you would like to tell us how that can be nurtured by our leaders, we would like to hear that as well where we are going to get to your calls right away if we can get our producers to get some calls on the line while we are talking to you about america's core competency. we went to wikipedia which, as you know, is the self edited by people all rumble world really -- all are around the world really. we want to give you some statistics about the united states for its land mass. over 3.79 million square miles. 300 million people. the united states is the third or fourth largest country by a total area and the third largest both by land area of population. it is one of the world's most
ethnically diverse and multi- cultural nations, the product of a large-scale immigration from many countries. the u.s. economy is the world's largest national gdp of $14.30 trillion and a quarter of the nominal global gdp and one-fifth of the gdp at purchasing power parity. that is the size and the economics of the united states. one of the possible core competencies as we talk to you this morning about america's strengths from tom friedman's column. here is a little bit more about what he writes -- we will begin with a call from huntington beach, california. good morning.
slade on the democrat's lead but caller: the problem with our country is we refusing to deal with what is really causing our problem. like at the moment, everybody is willing to clean up the tea party. the tea party is no different than the republican party. host: we talk about the tea party a lot here, and i am asking a positive, what is america's core competency and you are going into problems. what you tell us what is good about the country, what works and what could be strengthened? caller: i can't tell you what works -- and i tell you what is causing it not to work? host: as long as he did to the other part, too. caller: what causes it not to work is bigotry and racism and we refuse to deal with it. host: what is our greatest strength, competency? caller: i really don't know. host: don't think the country
has any? caller: i think racism and bigotry is killing it. host: thanks very much. we will see of other people can go to strengths of america. beginning with a caller from the independent line in dallas. donald, you are on the air. last time or we are moving on. let's move from wisconsin, caleb, independent-minded leb. r: this is calb i was watching it and you guys were talking about the creativity being strong and you have a lot of creativity. but a lot of problems -- manufacturing, only one person comes up with the idea and makes the money and start producing its overseas. does not really create any jobs here, just creates one wealthy person -- i don't know, it seems to me like you need to
multiplied it to numerous people. host: joe, american hero writes on twitter. another twitter writer -- and negative from him. do you all agree? if not, what do you think america's core competency is? gerry, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. with all of the spending that they are doing, i have a newspaper clipping put out in 1965. this is 2010 -- the government would go -- it says 2010, the government would go under.
the people 0 $63 billion and they are taking out more and more and we are not getting what we deserve and we worked all of our life for. host: all right. strengths anda's from wikipedia's view, the combined input of many editors around the country. the land mass. the land area is approximately 1.9 billion acres. alaska is the largest state at 365 million acres. hawaii, just over 400 acres. it is -- 4 million acres. the nine states is the world's third of fourth largest nation by a total area ranking behind russia and canada and just above or below china. chuck on independent line. caller: good morning. i think the problem with america, our politicians, they
support the wealthy and not the american people. they support the corporations. and they want to talk about getting back to the constitution. they are actually doing the opposite. they are supporting the very few. host: so i am going to do the same with the. as america's strength its constitution? turn your complaints on its head and tell us what america's core competency is. caller: the strength is the middle class and for the country to thrive the middle class has to prosper. for the middle-class to prosper, we got to have jobs. for the last 30 years we have been basically on an outsourcing gimmick for the corporations and the wealthy to profit more and they don't really care about the american people. i don't think they are patriots and i don't think they christians. host: your estimation america's core strength is the strength of
its middle class and for you the prescription to keep that strong is jobs. caller: yes. host: thank you for your call. take a break from this in a minute to talk to ian watching the house and senate as they move toward the end of the federal fiscal year. the news editor of "the hill." the government officially ends its fiscal year october 1, mr. swanson. what is going to happen with funding the government programs that did not have individual bills passed? >> none of the individual appropriations bills have been passed so the government is going to move what is called a continuing resolution that would keep the government funded through december 3. we are expecting the senate to vote on that sometime today and the house on thursday. host: how long is expected to last? guest: until december 3.
host: what is -- with the timing? guest: because congress will be coming back for a lame-duck session sometime after the elections in november. it is possible they will not get the work done by december 3 and it will have to do a couple of days sometime after december so they can come back after december 3 and do more work and then possibly do an omnibus bill in the summer or possibly do another continuing resolution to sort of kick the ball to the next congress. host: in fact, the continuing resolution, does it make the changes in the current level of funding for the government? caller: it will reduce overall funding by about $9 billion from the previous fiscal year, according to the summary. host: how will it do that? guest: various cut across the board. they are also not going to add any of the last minute additions the obama administration was looking for. host: is the temperament from
both parties and houses that they want to get it out of here? guest: everyone's mind is on getting back to our local districts so they can campaign. both parties want to get out of town. the democrats probably even more so than the republicans. host: the bottom line, if you are around the country and you either have a federal job or somehow dependence on federal funds, what does this mean for you? guest: it means there won't be a government shutdown, and least for now, which is something that had been speculated about and people started to worry about. you will continue to get your pay. but i don't believe there is a pay raise included in the continuing resolution. so if you are a federal worker, you will not see an increase. host: thank you very much. the senate today and the house moving after?
guest: i misspoke earlier one i said the senate would be thursday -- senate lawyers said they will try to vote as quickly as they can after the senate. host: later on we will talk to congressman bill pascrell. any chance the house will take that up? guest: maybe it could be something they will look after the elections. but the basic political truth here is that more democrats don't want to devote now rather than after the election because they think a compromise would turn off their political liberal base and possibly suppress democratic voters from the election as well. host: thank you for your information. ianth swanson e hill close " bring us up-to- date of the end of the fiscal year and the continuing resolution -- ian swanson from
"the hill." are question comes from tom friedman's column, but characterizing the tea party movement. attract and the frustration that runs across party lines -- trapped in the frustration and run across party lines, he suggests it is not partisan in nature, but frustration with the state of the country. he says the kinds of things that tea party is talking about could become stronger if there is a leader who can ask the kinds of questions about what america is good at and how we put ourselves back on track to get there. that is our question for you this morning. i will ask all of you calling in did we know about your complaints and we have been listening. but the flip side is, what makes this country great and how we put ourselves on track to get there. let's go back to telephones. once the, alabama. emil, independent line.
caller: american's core competency is its people, the general population. it always has been our core competency. that may sound rather pollyanna for some. let me explain it if you look back in the last hundred years, you can't take it back to the board of the nation but the last hundred years, the american be bought galvanized themselves, tilt the balance of world war won world war ii, turned a corner on racism and the jim crow laws. the first caller saying we do not do anything about racism in this country -- what rubbish. the guy needs to get out more. we won the cold war. we have made this nation to be what it is today. not to say it does not have its faults, but it is the american people and it is exactly the american people and what we stand for, the values that we inculcate, from the constitution to the declaration of
independence through all of the things that set those values, it is those americans abhor getting so restive because of the very things that thomas friedman is saying -- that we are not seeing problems solved. the american people are problem solvers. an american people will pull this through. host: let me ask you about political leadership. how does any political leader regardless of party tap into what was described as a core strength? caller: there is a difference between in this case simple political leadership in terms of leading a party, running a campaign, and true statesmanlike leadership. what we need is someone who will come in and rise above the problems. i think that is what a lot of people were looking for in obama. they had enough of the bush administration -- and i personally supported the bush administration and i still don't think they were as bad as a lot of people think they were. but i also voted for obama because i thought it was time for a change. i thought he was ushering in
some change. he has not quite brought us there. but that kind of ibm -- idea, the weight he was writing, that is what people need. we need to let someone who will come in and focus on issues. and i think the main thing, in my opinion, any leader who has tried to achieve a national office and be a national leader has to work at bringing about bipartisanship. that is a mantra that is getting almost trite now but that is exactly what is going on. we cannot make progress as long as we are divided between ourselves. that is what i think the core of a new leadership will come into, is making the federal government and congress work. host: thank you for calling from alabama. on the population. our source, wikipedia. the census projects the population at 310 million, estimated 11.2 million illegal immigrants. the third most populous nation in the world after china and india, the nine it states is the
only industrialized nation in which large population increases are projected. a diverse population -- 31 ancestry groups have more than a million members. population growth of hispanic and latino americans, major demographic trends. the 46.9 million americans of hispanic descent are identified as sharing a distinct ethnicity by the census bureau. back to calls. banker, maine. kate, a republican line. we are talking about america's core competencies or greatest strength. caller: i think the american population has forgotten that
they have a voice. and that politicians are there public voice -- their public voice. and a big american people have forgotten that they have the voice. host: so to answer the question, the fact that we constitutionally have a right to speak for ourselves. caller: absolutely. yes. and i think the politicians in washington have forgotten that. that they are our voice. host: how easy it is being tapped? caller: if the politicians go back to what is going on in individual states, they will figure it out. but at the moment, nobody is listening. host: thank you for your call. some e-mails. ellen in michigan.
next is a call from indiana. brian, democrats wanted caller: good morning. -- brian, democrats line. caller: good morning. our natural resources and just our tourism. i have been to a lot of our national parks and they are full of people from all over the world, especially japan and germany, like in the grand canyon and all out of west. our diversity. and tourism has to be big. and our sense of fairness. we have an innate sense of fairness. things are looking grim, but things are coming back. sera't mean to say que sera, but things are looking up and it just takes a while.
it's a let me ask the same questions i asked earlier -- host: let me ask the same questions i guess earlier. how easy political leaders tapping into what? caller: barack obama, what is it -- what a breath of -- he is articulate, well received around the world. he inherited, i am sorry to say -- but he inherited a bad situation. and it is going to take time. we have to be patient. and i just got a job, by the way. host: how long were you out of work? caller: for the long as i have ever been. it was about a year. host: did you find a comparable job? caller: i don't think i will never find it -- i was a union man and i am in tennessee now. the cost of living is less down here.
but i can't complain. you know. there are jobs available. i am blessed. host: thank you for your call. we will let you go because there is a little static on your line. edward winslow sent to this by e-mail. that is what he says our core competency is produced and, texas, ann, a republican line. caller: good morning, susan. i think our core is our constitution. i think if we follow that, it will all turn out ok. host: how do you see following the constitution playing out in the political arena? how does a leader tap into that?
caller: that is a hard question. i just think that our country is full of wonderful people, and i think with the right leaders that we can get back to that. i don't think we know who that is yet. host: next, and arbor, michigan. ron, independent line. as we discuss america's core competency. caller: first-time caller to c- span. i think america's core competency is america's willingness and speed at changing things that have not worked in the past. in older countries in europe, and china, they build up traditions that are hard for them to change. but america historically, if something doesn't work, we get rid of it and go to something new. host: what are you thinking about when you say that? caller: for example, if a political party is not doing the
right job, we get rid of that party and bring in another part repaired if an economic system is not working -- another party. if an economic system is not working, which change it. we constantly change to make things better. host: next is clearwater, florida. melissa on the republican line. caller: good morning to you, melissa. -- good morning. our constitution that allows for the separation of powers, both in terms of the branches of the government and the federal government versus the state government. i think our other core competency is the fact that we attempt to educate all of our citizens through free public education which i think is critical in terms of having an educated electorate that can function. host: how does a leader of the future tap into these? guest: i think the fact that some of the problems that we
have had been caused by ignoring our separation of powers and allowing federal laws to impact upon state laws, like we are seeing in health care, so i think we are turning back to having a real strong sense of how this -- these branches of government are supposed to work and how the various levels of government are supposed to work, would returning back to a state of more checks and balances so we would not have, the problems that we are seeing now. and that ties back into having people being educated if people understand how government is supposed to work, they are able to function more effectively. host: melissa from florida. thank you for your call. the newspapers are full of stories that all come out of the census numbers that are starting to come out with great rapidity.
"usa today" has a cover story -- recession's impact on us. lifestyle changes are deep and long term. how we dealt with the crisis. the economy has reshaped lives in a variety of ways. here are the things i like. fewer people are moving. more homes sit empty. one out of eight housing units was vacant in 2009, a big jump over 2006. more advanced degrees. increasing numbers are getting bachelor's and advanced degrees to boost skills and also because there are not jobs available when you graduate from college. more on only one corporate a percentage of homes that have more than one dropped. couples delayed marriage. the share of women 18 and older who are married slipped below 50% for the first time. we will show you more numbers. the six ways and of america today -- situation in america
today. how leaders can understand america's core competency. dallas, texas. michele, democrats wanted caller: -- michelle, democrats line. caller: i do believe the middle- class is america's competency because we are the ones who really make the world go round. i think the rich texas oilman, the poor has the government to take care of them and the middle-class -- the rich have the money, the port have a the government to take care of them. asking each every individual city to get real american people to speak out. don't claim that the american people are speaking out. allow us to speak out. i agree with the other caller who says we are always changing things. everyone is so against what the
democrats doing in office now, when the world knows they are not giving them a chance. i am really annoyed that the fact that this simple question is not a asked in american cities but only on c-span. please put this question out there. everybody needs to speak out. thank you. host: next is built on the republican line. caller: i would like to talk about the volunteers in america -- coaches, the women and men who coached our children and help our children. they take care of problems. a coach at heidelberg university in ohio. this man has taken some of the young men under his wing. we just loved him the other day. he was one of the greatest volunteers he has ever seen. . he was a paid coach at the college but i am sure before that he volunteered.
as for the lady from texas, george herbert bush, he lied about taxes and we threw him out. when you americans get lied to, you know what to do and you throw them out. host: the united states is officially a secular nation, the first amendment says wikipedia, guarantees freedom of religion and no establishment. a far higher figure in america say government plays an important role in their lives. 78.4% of adults identify themselves as christian, down from 86.4% in 1990. virginia.
chris, independent line. caller: thanks. i am a second time a caller. i have been listening to this program for years. hard to actually get on the air. so i am appreciative were glad to be on. anyway, as far as the core competencies, we are a large and powerful country, over 300 million people. one of the largest countries in the world in terms of population. and it is not just population. we are a very affluent country compared to other countries in the world, which is probably obvious to anyone listening. so, i think we should not just focus on having one core competence a. i kind of got in at the tail end of the discussion, but i gather we are talking about economic. but we shall not focus on any one core competency. we should focus on having that
diverse economy. whether you are talking about manufacturing, services, or what ever. in some parts of the country, although some sectors in this economy are kind of doing poorly right now, other sectors are doing well. some of your localities are actually doing kind of well because their particular industries that are prominent in that locality is actually doing quite well. actually not doing so bad. one of the benefits of having a diverse competency. i guess you are more resilient. i just want to say that -- it to take up on what a previous caller was saying. i am an independent. i guess i kind of lean to the left. but i agree with the previous caller about the constitution. i think a lot of americans have not even read the constitution. there is a lot of good stuff in
there. that is a very, very good document and to the extent that america keeps it and follow said, this country will be in the right path. not only the constitution but remember our founding fathers and what they taught us and their lessons, i think that would be good. host: i am going to take thank you at that point, appreciate you calling in the. a more in newspaper about the census data and how more newspapers are picking up statistics. as you see in "the washington post" the census data reflects a u.s. downturn. one of those, on the front page of "the philadelphia inquirer or," with a recession, fewer babies being born. "the washington post," d.c. and region has disturbing rises and childhood party. "the baltimore sun," state
household incomes fell in 2009 but maryland fare better than most states. more will becoming out in the days and weeks ahead to give us a snapshot of america in 2010. illinois, daniel, democrats line. america's core competencies. good morning. caller: i agree with everyone who called then his said of the constitution is one of our many strengths. as far as the leadership, i think that president barack obama is a political genius and he has tapped in and i think he is doing a marvelous job. everyone is saying, why is he not communicating more. i don't blame the president for holding his cards close to his vest. to my point, i would rather have a strong enemy than a cowardly friend. i can work with a liberal republican but some of the blue dog democrats, they have a yellow streak of their back a
mile wide and i don't blame the president for wanting to hold his cards close to his best. the wisdom of the constitution, i finally see the reason for midterm elections. he can diss some of the bad cards. the constitution was written by great and wise people. and that and we're on the right track. we just have to fight through it. everybody is fighting against change. people do not really want to arrange. and those are the growing pains of our country. host: daniel from illinois. from "the washington post" this morning, anti outsourcing bill fails in the senate. it failed to clear at a key procedural hurdle tuesday after some democrats complained the measure would hamper the ability of u.s. companies to compete in foreign markets.
we have been hearing about more draw on strikes in pakistan -- in the pakistan/afghanistan border. greg miller is reporting -- next is a call from west woods, new jersey. caller: good morning. i certainly would like to sit down and have a beer with the last caller, but to be anybody who loves his country is
certainly welcome and i would like to have a discussion with them. on this basic concept, it goes down to the founding fathers and what they wanted. they gave us this constitution and the declaration of independence, and so on. our basic competency can be stated thus. early to bed, early to rise, makes a person or a nation, healthy, wealthy, and wise. people today in many cases do not want to work. the big problem, i think. and for the sake of future generations of this blessed country, it is far more important to kill or repeal very bad legislation then to pass even good legislation. and i think a responsible president would certainly have vetoed the health-care bill and sent it back to be corrected.
when 71% of the people in this country don't want something, why would a president, who claimed that he was a constitutional law professor -- which he was not -- and has his trouble with truth. truth is the basic thing. he was an adjunct instructor. he was not -- and i do not think he understand our constitution. host: i was stopped at that point. thank you. john sends this tweet -- from "usa today" amtrak unveils a high-speed rail plan.
america's core competencies. syracuse, new york. independent line. caller: thank you for accepting my call. i would like to say that the basic core of america is, and has always been, the people. the people of this nation is an industrious people. we have always been a manufacturing country. we have always produced in this country. that is what has found at this country, that is what started it, that is what kept it going.
when a government goes against what the corps is and outsources and allows companies to outsource resources the country needs to sustain our economy, then that government works against its own people. and the fact that you just had on their about the senate bill for the outsourcing companies having to pay a higher tax. in my view, that should have been passed, no questions. when a country does not produce, does not export, the people are the ones that suffer. and i would just like to say that the immigrant situation isn't the problem. it is the illegal immigration that is causing a problem in this country. host: thank you from syracuse.
next is texas. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am going to see if i did this really fast. ok. i am a 60-year-old woman on disability, or actually ssi because of physical disabilities. but last 2008 i went down from texas to pinellas county just to campaign for barack obama and that is where i thought where the core competency is, it is in the use of the country. -- youth of the country. not just the modern technology of the internet, the cellphone, everything. and getting out there with the people.
i saw so much energy. so much vibrancy with these youth. they came from around the country into these little areas. that is where we have our strength. our strength is in our youth. so if we allow our youth. they work together. they are not worried about past prejudices. they are not worried about everything that has happened that has brought our country down. what they are looking forward to is the future. and that is what the rest of america in needs to think about. watch your children because they are the ones who are going to lead us in the future. thank you very much for allowing me to have my little piece. , is: rochester, new york'
going to be the last on this. a jolt on the republican line. in caller: i believe our core competency is our self- sufficiency. i believe when people take care of themselves and take care of their families and there is less reliance on government, that makes it a lot easier for a government to function when there are less people dependence on it. so, i am very thankful for all of the people out there who take care of themselves. as far as advantages over other countries. we have so money -- so many. our geography, we are not a hot or cold place, we are both. we can grow or produce more food than anyone else. we never tapped our natural resources. we have a ton of oil in alaska and off our coast. we should be using that. we export entertainment and music -- movies and music that the rest of the world seems to want. we have advanced technologies.
we have so many advantages that we have to start taking advantage of to make us more prosperous. open spaces. we have too many people living congested in cities when we have states with almost no one living in them. very small populations in the northern part of the country. basically if people take care of themselves and become less dependent on government, we will get out of this whole. it's good thank you so much. you had the last word. if you would like to read tom friedman's column in its entirety you can go to the new york times web site or at the newsstand. we have two members of congress coming up. first, built pascrell -- bill pascrell of new jersey. then congressman dan lungren from california talking about electoral politics as congress
leaves to go home to campaign for reelection. in between we were -- we will learn about from our local content vehicle, one of the races in louisiana three. >> c-span's local content vehicles are travelling the country as we look at those most hotly contested house races. >> the third district includes to wonder miles of road. on the northern and is really the edge of the cajun heartland. oil and gas industry. closer to the bottom exactly the southeastern coast line so fisheries are huge. it is fair to say the third district has some of the most commercial fishermen in the third district. there is a lot offshore
activity. candidates who run and the third district use would need about $1.5 million to win. it is a huge district, and there are three large media markets. the race has really been defined by the republican side of the contest, the republican primary, which pits new iberia businessman jeff landry against former state speaker of the house hunt downer. the surprising thing, but a tax -- the attacks on each other. an empty suit, disgrace to the uniform. hunt downer question jeff landry's status and desert storm because he served over here. jeff landry called downer's time ceremonial. >> i am hunt downer and i approve this ad.
>> jeff landry must be confused. he cannot decide if he is pro- life. he was undecided on exceptions on abortion and this year he switched to total pro-life. a month later, he claims he will allow exceptions for abortion and a month later he switched begin to grow lights. can we really trust him? go to jeff landry lied to you.com to find out. >> jeff landry has deep roots in the third district. his original opponents was a man named correct moral and jet landing ran his campaign and he is using some of the same people from the campaign to run his
this time around. he is a small businessman. he served in the sheriff's office locally in his parish. former louisiana national guard. last year he lost a bid for the state senate and came almost directly off of that race to melt the campaign he is running right now. extremely conservative. he picked up a majority of the tea party support. he has been able a few times to sit back and let the tea party kind of hacked away at hunt downer's record for him so he did not directly have to get involved. he is not shy to get involved. he is definitely an in-your-face type of candidate. >> revelations 3 and 16 -- because you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, i will spewed out of my mouth. the tea party discovered many lukewarm politicians within the republican party. we call them rinos -- republican in name only hunt downer was a
democrat for 30 years before conveniently switching to the republican party. hunt downer has a deep connection with kathleen blanco, as chief lobbyist in 2006, and $5,000 in campaign contributions. stock hunt downer from going to washington. down with downer. this was paid for by the tea party of louisiana. >> the real challenge is to give the voters out. the primary election, we only had 18% was the average turnout. that is so disappointing. we have men and women serving our country who are willing to lay down their lives for us to have the right to vote. for the citizens cannot exercise that. so the challenge is for everyone. go out and vote. whether it is for me or someone else. go vote. >> hunt downer, a lot of people were surprised with his
performance in the first primary. jeff landry came within one month and 60 votes from winning outright but hunt downer was able to hold on and put them into a runoff. hunt downer has more than two decades. in the state legislature. he was a speaker of the house. he can take credit for a lot of technological advances here at the capitol. he brought all the committee rooms on line. you can watch them on your computer. he rearranged some of the voting systems in the house. after he left the legislature, he ran for governor and lost that race for governor and focused his time on the louisiana national guard. it became a brigadier general. the served briefly as secretary of veteran affairs. -- youhe governor's race can't help think this will be his last race. he has seen a lot of little action over his years. >> working hard.
from the bottom up -- i feel fantastic. >> the democrat is a young guy, in the american, first generation in the american. -- indian/-american. he had no opposition in the first primary. to borrow $5 million in the bank. -- $2.5 million in the bank. the republican congressional committee has not taken him lightly. the attack him for his voting record. he really did not start voting until last year when he announced for congress. he is a private attorney. while the republicans have kind of lomb in volleys at its other he tried to run an issues-based campaign, infant mortality and social security have been two of his top issues so far. this race will probably be among
the few that are still going to be contested on the november ballot. the republican primary is in october and depending on how elections play out, this could very well play a role and weather and not democrats maintain control of the house and senate. it also may be interesting to say whether the -- president obama will be willing to step out. he already endorsed a candidate in a neighboring district. it will be existing to see of the president is going to be willing to get involved in a political neophyte, so to speak. >> c-span's local content vehicles are travelling the country visiting communities and congressional districts as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our website c-span.org/lcv.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: let me into this you to congressman bill pascrell of new jersey, representing the eighth district -- including paterson. in congress for six turns -- terms. before he was mayor of paterson, new jersey, and was an assembly and began life as a high-school teacher. probably feels like a while back. guest: my wife always says, once a teacher, always a teacher. she was set at the table and say, it sounds just like a teacher. host: never lose it. we are talking about the tax proposal. seeking a compromise. first of all, let's get into specifics. let me start with one plant. the main thing is you are calling for a five-year extension of the current middle- class tax rates for individuals
under to enter thousand and families making less than 250. wi-fi years? guest: it cut the cost of the package and this was one of the major problems, stumbling blocks, and getting enough votes to pass something so that we do something immediately for the middle-class. i think the major problem of the doom and gloom is people don't know what to expect in the future. elections, by the way, are about the future. not just what your record is. i personally think if we can reduce that anxiety within one month and 61 million households, that pay taxes, that pay income taxes, and if we can reduce the anxiety among small business people, i think that is a home run. if we leave this after the election, which is what both sides are talking about, as you well know, then i think this is
the worst thing we can do. we kick the can down the road -- we are good at it in congress. but i don't think we are as good reading what the public wants at this time. $250,000, i think, is a good figure, it is middle-class. we need to extend also for five years the capital gains, the long-term capital gains taxes. i think it is important. i think it is a big kick for small business. and the other thing is dividends, qualified dividend's for senior citizens. they are going to spend the money. this is what we need to, in some way, excite the economy. and then the real compromise was 1-year extension, bringing the income up to $500,000. if i have to do that to get the votes, i would do that. host: used the metaphor of kicking the can down the road. whenever you put a son said, isn't it just picking the debate -- sunset, isn't it just
kicking it for later date? guest: i think there is a reason for that. we all knew that the cost would be inflated after the 10 years, and so did president bush. so, that is why he said 10 years. if you say we will cut the taxes indefinitely, you are lying to the american people because you don't know what is ahead of us. you don't know what the situation is going to be. i certainly don't know what it is going to be one year from now. i think that is the relative compromise, for five years for the first two parts, and one year for those making up to five funded thousand -- and business is making up to $500,000. host: we will take calls to talk about policy and politics. many of you have been following it closely and have strong opinions and we would like to hear your opinions and questions for mr. pascrell. the phone numbers are on the screen --
staying with the policy park, -- part, the head of the congressional budget office was testifying yesterday on capitol hill and was asked about the debt and the tax proposals. let us listen to him talking about the effect on the economy but also the effect on the debt. >> permanently or temporarily extended all or part of the expiring income tax cuts would boost output and employment in the next few years relative to what would occur under current law where those tax cuts expire. in that would occur because all of being equal, lower tax payments increased demand for goods and services and thereby boost economic activity. a permanent extension, whether full or partial, would provide a larger boost to income and
employment over the next two years. indicates that all four of the options for extending the tax cuts would probably reduce the national income in 2020 relative to what would occur under current law where those tax cuts expired. beyond 2020, the reductions in national income from all of the alternative tax extensions become larger, especially for the permanent extensions. moreover, a permanent and extension of the tax cuts -- host: we will leave him at that point. he made a point about the difference between permanent and tech -- temporary extensions. what do you want to say? guest: i agree that this is a stimulus to the economy and part of the recovery. it took us 10 years to get where we are right now, susan. if you are not going to get out of this in two years or three years totally. what i am saying is let us compromise and go another year for those making between
$250,000 up to 500 and out -- $500,000. talking about eight small percentage of the 11961 million taxpaying households. if we need to get enough votes and stop holding middle-class tax cuts as hostage, we should do it. these people will spend the money. it is proven over and over again. when you go back to 2001 and 2003, those who made over $400,000, they were not investing back to the economy and buying goods and services. the data showed us specifically that it is the middle class that keeps this economy humming primarily. it does not mean that the 350,000 households that make between $250,000 and a zillion dollars are not important to this economy. but the middle-class spends the money. we need that stimulus right now.
to get out of the deep recession we are in. host: let me turn to politics. the front page of "roll call" this morning -- pelosi and hoyer sent mixed signals. guest: i think the speaker -- and i agree with her -- once to make sure that we are not seen as simply sitting on the fence on these tax cuts because all it does is create more anxiety. i am standing what mr. hoyer's situation is, if you don't have the votes why are you bringing it up and the first place? i appreciate two of my leader is not being quite on the same page. i know their dedication to helping the middle class. and i think we can find some ways that we can get enough votes to do this. we are going to finish tonight or tomorrow morning. look, there is nothing more important to me right now than expending middle-class tax cuts. and if we have to go further,
let us see how far we have to go. host: without the senate you cannot give a certainty you are looking for. guest: the senate has proven time and time again. we have over 300 bills that are there that they have not voted on. i cannot make and you cannot make the senate functional. they must understand that we are not going to be host: hemline also in "the h --" concern about revenue losses. guest: i think we need to take into consideration all the factors here. that is why i cut it down from 10 years to five years. we cannot afford $700 billion more to extend everybody for 10 more years. i think we can afford this,
particularly, in terms of the deep recession we are in. the government is a primary part of getting out of this. the government does nothing, the recession goes deeper. that is what i am worried about. host: let's begin with a phone call from new york. roger, democrat line. caller: i wondered, there is a lot of talk about this 2% being the wealthiest, 98% basically the rest of us. what percentages does that cover when you talk about your five- year extension up to $250,000, and your $500 million extension. what percentage does that cover of the taxpayers? guest: 99%.
caller: thank you very much. host: what is the magic between $250,000 or families, $200,000 for individuals? guest: president bush and his economists sat around the table and talk about where the middle class was in terms of cost for 11. i think that number is pretty valid. host: that was eight years ago. guest: yes, some may suggest bringing it up to $350,000. i would say $200,000 and $250,000 is appropriate. millionaires will still be tax- free. if it goes up to $500,000, the
first $500,000 would have a tax extension.nsio host: as we are talking about threshold, how about five under dollars for your five-year extension? guest: we are talking about 350,000 families in the country, as opposed to 161,000 taxpaying families. the percentage is 0.00. i think it is a pretty good compromise. host: lisa, independents line. caller: i am trying to figure out, instead of doing something temporary, why doesn't congress suggest the alternative minimum tax and adjusted for inflation? wouldn't that give more relief
to more people since they do not have to pay as many taxes? guest: i think that is an excellent question. it has been adjusted every year. the tax cuts brought about in 2001, 2003, put more and more people in jeopardy of being further taxed, almost double taxed because of the amount of income that was coming into individual families. i have been on the ways and means committee for four years now. i and a few others have attempted to permanently fix this tax. more of us are being adored as we do not pay our income taxes next year. your tax expert looks at you and says, you are going to get caught this year.
we need to fix it, but we need to find money to do that. i am with you 100%. i think that these are critical. what's your question brings about, and i think this is important, we talk about one tax but then we automatically talk about another tax. we need general tax reform. if you want to talk about small business tax cuts, i would say we need a general, universal tax reform. i am willing to except corporate decline in taxes from 45% to 25%. both of our chairman, rangel and levin, have approached the subject. i think this would be a great
boost to the economy. i point is, your question highlights the fact that we need tax reform. we need to talk about other taxes, real tax reform. every president has promised it in the past four decades, and none of them have delivered. host: i showed you that had done on mixed feelings -- had line on mixed feelings on tax cuts. here is another one. "washington times" -- guest: he is one of the most articulate democrats on the subject. i believe nancy pelosi has been a great leader.
i believe she has been very mischaracterized. she has been accused of burning the plague to some places. i have not always agree with the leadership, but the point is, with your team going into an election, any speculation as to what will happen after the election is premature. who put this stuff out? i am not sure. i am sure is not just the media. host: what does that mean? guest: some self-serving folks who want to take a shot at a particular position. i will be with you if you make an attempt to do this. i am more concerned about what will happen in november. host: next telephone call is from baltimore. sheila, republican line.
caller: isabella. i am listening to you speak, and do you guys in the government want to have everybody to have an equal amount of money that they have to make? it seems to me, $250,000, you are not rich. but if you make more than that, you are supposed to be rich. i came to this country because i wanted to make more money. i wanted to work, grow, i want my children to do well. i thought if you did well, the government would take your money
away, so why do it? maybe just sit around and the government will take care of you. they will give you health care, a car, cell phone. that is not fair. guest: ok. in the last 20 years, records will show that poverty has increased in the country. while we are not an egalitarian society, that is everybody will be the same, you have to work. there is no free lunch out there. those who are the most of vulnerable, seniors living on fixed income, the four who do not have jobs for, -- poor who do not have jobs for, who want to work, which is often
mischaracterized. we need to create jobs in the private sector. i heard someone talking about offshore jobs in the united states. we need to go back to making things in america for a change. i understand the frustration of when you are working hard and paying taxes, you simply think that the money is going to people sitting on their rear ends. i think that is an oversimplification of what is happening. host: what policy changes, either offshore tax policy, trade policies, even the china currency debate, how could it help? guest: all three. the offshore in of american jobs happened with bush as well as clinton. even before clinton. we need to stop making it
profitable to ship jobs offshore. many corporations are getting the advantage of it. if somebody does not pay their taxes on the street where you live, property taxes, then you will be paying more. that is the situation. we are shifting jobs regularly offshore. as far as the chinese currency thing, we have basically surrendered our will to the chinese government on trade issues. we need to level the playing field. they have been able to manipulate their currency. this has a lot to do with american jobs. we do not make anything anymore. god forbid we would ever go through a war. we would have to buy goods from the chinese, and that does not make me feel comfortable. manufacturing, once again, has to be a major part of the economy in this country.
we cannot all be in the service industry. host: next phone call from maine. andrew, independent line. caller: i feel the tax burden of this country in general needs to be taken upon by the corporations. i believe taxing work more than wealth is unfair to the vast majority of us who work for eight hours a day. i feel the corporations who outsource the job need to somehow compensate for the revenue that is being sent out. we need to stop letting china bully us into our fiscal policy. do we have a way of offsetting this balance between the wealth taxation and work taxation in this country? host: to clarify, are you arguing the rates for earned
income are punitive, as opposed to rates for unearned income? guest: i think he has a great question. it goes to the heart of the matter, how we tax. as i said before, i am open to a reduction in the corporate tax. we have had one of the highest corporate taxes in the world. on the other hand, i want to go after these corporations who have worked through the loopholes of the tracks -- tax structure, as it is excess -- as it exists -- causing a disadvantage for all of us. they do not have the same tax situations in the cayman islands where they can protect
their incomes. every administration since the second world war has capitulated on this subject. it is now a situation where we are so deep in recession we need to do something about it. that is why we need general tax reform. we used to tax assets more than income. now we tax income more than assets. this is not class warfare, but simply a matter of fairness. host: speaking about tax reform, here is a suggestion on twitter -- guest: when you are dealing with tax reform, everything is on the table. you mentioned the currency issue. what about china subsidizing its manufacturing industry?
we are at a competitive disadvantage with china, india, japan, and that is why our imbalance in trade is so great. we need to do something about that. the wto has not really acted to bring this to hold. i think we need a change in this policy. host: this is a dealer who calls ewer whomaverick -- vi called himself maverick -- guest: i would hope that the majority of corporations are responsible. many are not. before the deep recession started perhaps in 2006, 2007, we know that many corporations
felt that they could only survive by going offshore. look at the textile industry. new jersey, north carolina, georgia, mexico, costa rica, honduras, india, etc. sounds good, your profits will increase, you will stay in business longer. we need to find a way to stop the hemorrhaging, to find an incentive for those manufacturers. we have introduced that legislation to provide incentives to manufacturers so that they will stay here and higher american workers. these are good paying jobs that provided at least partial health benefits for individuals. these were not walmart jobs. i am proud that i do not have a wal-mart in my district. host: we are speaking to bill pascrell about tax policy.
next phone call. caller: i have a question. why is it, since 2009, we have had democrats in control of the congress, senate, and president, and right now we can not get an up or down vote on taxes. but we have time listening to comedian's testified before congress? this is an insult. guest: i agree, who is in control should control the agenda, but we are doing our best. some republicans even our try to get this before a vote before we go home. it is embarrassing that we cannot address an issue where most democrats and republicans agree on the 250 and below -- i am oversimplifying that.
but i agree, i would have done the same process and health care. we could have lake -- made it less painful. i think we should put this on the floor and vote up or down. i would use the suspension process. you need two-thirds past this. then you can smoke out those folks who want all or nothing. they want to provide a tax cut to people making more than a zillion dollars while we do not hold hostage the middle class tax cut. host: he mentioned the stephen colbert testimony. it was written about today in "the washington post." was a good idea? guest: they can ask anybody they want to come to testify. he is from my home state of new
jersey. i think he is very humorous but he is also a very intelligent. i think he is a good american. host: what to you think about the march on washington before the election? guest: i hope it is sensible. i hope it is not simply a mock -- we are good at that ourselves. we do not need stewart and colbert. lots of people have marches downtown, so why not them? host: next phone call. caller: i was watching congressman steve pomeroy, one of the so-called leaders of the
blue dogs. i was thinking, they should change their name to pomeranian. all they do is yap at your feet and ask for food and they do not really do anything. you are talking about helping the middle class. i always thought the middle class was $100,000 a year. but a republican congressman was on the other day and he says it starts at $75,000 a year. well, median income for a family is $56,000. nobody represents us. who is going to talk about the working class, the people who do all the work in this country? where are the democrats when it
comes to talking about the working class, which is the majority of the american people? guest: thank you for the question. number one, we have too many factions within parties in congress. when it comes down to the major problems that face us, we ought to be on the same page. these are supposedly deficit hawks, but we always find the money to help corporations, we always find the money to bail out somebody. we do not go after companies and corporations that are violating the law. we give them preferred prosecution. american people are pretty disgusted that we are not being fair minded about who we are going after when they break will law. you are on target. many of my friends are lou dobbs. -- lou dobbs.
-- blue dogs. to get your question, where does the middle class begin? it has been a few years since you have been out of college, so perhaps it goes up. how much income you keep really define where the middle class is going. there is no excuse, no reason under the sun why we should not be passing middle-class tax cuts. there is no reason except for stupid politics. host: next phone call from steve, atlanta. republican line. caller: thank you for being on today. my question is, i think a lot of senators and congressmen do
not realize when they make tax increases in an economic downturn, those of us that have lost a spouse, and come, through the unemployment situation, maybe we are making more than $250,000, we bought homes, other things that we were obligated to, not anticipating a big downturn and a tax hike. what do you think will happen, what kind of thought had been put into this, 4th the thousands of us in this situation? if we get another tax cut, we will be forced into foreclosure or be forced to sell our assets. guest: if that happens, as far as consequences, those are the consequences. i disagree that we have not been concerned.
we put forward eight small business tax cuts. we did not get much help from the republican side. they voted against these things because it added to the deficit, but they want to give millionaires' tax cuts. talk about talking from both sides of your mouth. democrats do it, too. when you are making $250,000 -- four couples, by the way -- i want to extend tax cuts for the middle-income folks. that is my main focus. i also want to extend the dividends for seniors. as well, in the recovery act of
last year, 95% of americans got tax cuts. it spread out over two years. that was a brilliant idea from somebody in the white house. people do not even realize they are getting tax cuts, and their taxes are less. we did not do a good job communicating it. i can understand you are a hardworking man and you want to keep as much as possible. host: next phone call from st. louis. robert, democrat's line. caller: i have a simple question. i keep hearing these manufacturing jobs are not coming back. what is it, as far as taxes are concerned, that would stop someone from opening up a shoe
store, furniture store? is there something in the taxes that makes it extremely difficult? it bears to be repeated that we have had eight tax cuts for small businesses so far since the administration had been there. could you explain it to me? guest: you take the situation in depreciation of a product or apparatus within a company. we have helped companies, in terms of spreading out the cost. we had a hire program so that there would be incentives to bring someone on. i think the government can do something. it cannot do everything, it cannot do most things, but what it can do is provide a pathway. the small business
administration did a fantastic job. not only in this recession, but before, helping small businesses. we need to open up credit. a lot of these small businesses have been open for 30 years and they cannot get credit. we have to make sure regulators are talking out of both sides of their mouth. if their record is good. many of the lines of credit are necessary for small business to pay for personnel summaries and to byproduct, and to pay their own bills. we just passed legislation with the help of one republican vote. we passed legislation to provide $30 million to community banks so that they can loan. we are getting back t.a.r.p. money that we loaned to the automobile companies we are getting back.
the question is, what is rescued and what is not? whether it was the recovery act or small business tax cuts, we would have been in far worse shape. host: this twitter writer asks -- guest: no, this is basically a blue-collar district. eighth district. there are some people in more affluent towns, which there are not that many, who do work on wall street. i take into consideration everything. most people would consider my record liberal. but when a "liberal" says to you that i have been fighting to lower the corporate tax in
america -- so you do not paint with a wide brush. we have to come to a solution that will help everybody. host: tampa, al. republican line. caller: has anybody thought about passing a federal transaction tax? a lot of these taxes for counties are from the sales tax. people are not paying their fair share because they are buying products out of state or out of the country. we are spending all this money on so large. has anybody thought about putting saul are on top of all the schools? that way, if you are going to take the income away from the kids, at least they can have money coming in to pay. i am also a disabled veteran. the sba, i have been waiting
five years for my claim. i have been unable to start a business. i appreciate everything that you are doing. guest: i have had no greater priority since coming to congress than those who put their lives on the line. i wish i could be of some assistance to you directly about you having to wait for your claims so that you can start your business. i have found the sba to be very pliable, open. if you write to me personally, i can try to get you help. host: solar panels on the
schools? guest: i have legislation that would manufacture not only wind turbines here, but i think we should do the same thing with solarz. many public buildings are going that way, green buildings. we are doing a lot more, but we are not doing enough. the government can provide loans, and incentives, in order for all of us to understand we need to conserve and do everything we can to get off of oil, fossil fuel. that does not happen in one day, one decade, but we need to begin the process. host: savannah, lee. independent line. caller: i want to know why american people have a budget that they have to stick to but
the government keeps on growing? guest: we have a pay go system right now. if you cannot find the money to do it, it will not get done. if we stick to that, we get back to the resilience we had in the 2000 bonds, we read balance the budget -- 2000's, we rebalance the budget, and we did not pay for either of the iraq or afghan wars. we borrowed some money from the chinese to meet our obligations. we are now under pay go rules.
if you look at the agenda that the republicans put out last week, the agenda would provide a greater deficit under what president obama is talking about for the next 10 years. i think we need to look at all of these things to make sure that we are spending within our limits. but when you have a recession, the only entity that can really move the ball down the field is the federal government because people have anxiety, they do not have money to spend. it is our taxes. we need to spend even more, wisely. host: we started the program speaking to a reporter from "the hill" that says taxes may not happen in the lame-duck session. you have been around here for a long time, will it happen?
guest: i will do everything i can. i will need the help of other people. leadership will have a heavy burden. besides the legislation that we will be addressing, these are all important, significant, but what is also important is getting americans to keep the money that they earn. nothing is more important to me than the middle class have been somewhat of an invented to do that. if we have to go higher, we should. if we need compromise in order to get seniors protected under qualified dividend's, we should do that. if we have to have a capital gains extension of tax cuts, we should do that. the point is, you cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth.
you cannot emphasize the deficit and want to give billionaire's tax cuts. the american people will was up to both parties. if anything, the tea party has credibility in that regard, but it seems like they are talking from the same spot every time, or they are arguing with each other. i think we have seen some evolution of politics. i do not agree with much of what they put out there, but at least the tea party has crystallized what is happening in washington. we were given a hand of cards. the republican party tried to tear the arm off of president obama. i have not agreed with the president on everything, but i know he is trying his best, is
working hard every day. host: bill pascrell, democrat from new jersey, thank you. coming up, we will hear from the other side of the aisle. dan lundgren of california will be here. >> the california governor's race is one of the most competitive and expensive races this fall. the two candidates, meg whitman and jerry brown, the governor of california in the 1970's. they had their first debate last night. here is what they had to say about creating jobs. >> my plan is to invest in a clean energy. i do not want to go back to the 19th century and listen to the oil companies in texas. i want to stand firm on ab32, our climate and energy jobs bill. we can build 20,000 megawatts in unpackeagain become the lear
efficiency. >> the truth is, we are not competitive to neighboring states. 30 years ago, we did not have as much competition, but we do now. we have to examine every regulation and see if we are competitive spirit without jobs, there is no way out of this. we have to do a better job keeping companies in california and make sure we get expansion opportunities as well. no company should put a call center in phoenix, arizona. they should be putting it in fresno or stockton. host: with me now is a political reporter with the "san francisco chronicle." how do you think this debate will play out? >> you have two different styles. jerry brown is the current attorney general.
he has been in just about every level of government in his career. then you have meg whitman who has never run for political office. she has a spotty voting record. very little civic involvement until joining up with the mccain campaign. she comes from a classic business background. she ran ebay, successfully, for many years. so you have two different styles of how they are going to attack. whitman is conservative, wants to cut taxes for the wealthier californians. she proposes cutting the capital gains tax. jerry brown is coming from the perspective of a classic democrat-type of approach. he is much more friendly toward
the public service unions. >> the two candidates also talked about the $19 billion budget deficit that the state faces. the current governor and legislature are deadlocked on a decision. how did the candidates respond to how they would address these issues? >> they basically said the same thing in different ways. we need to start the budget process earlier. mag whitman wants to go to a two-year budget cycle. she says she would start budget talks earlier than they are now. top leaders from both sides of the legislature can get together. brown said the same thing. i know how the legislature works, she does not. we will sit down and i will give the legislators a greater voice.
both of these plants rely on the charisma of both of these candidates, and in that way, they are both plot for different reasons. >> these candidates are on record to -- on track to break campaign records. has jerry brown been able to match meg whitman? >> no way, nobody could ever come close. he will end up spending around $40 million. the unions, maybe another $20 million or so, mostly attacking her. he will spend only a fraction of what she will. she is the record breaker. he could even be spending less than previous democratic candidates. host: how are voters responding to this money -- >> how are
voters of bonding to this money disparity? -- responding to this money disparity? >> we will find out in a couple of weeks. as far as what we have seen from polls, brown is slightly ahead. that is significant in that there are 2 million more democrats in california then there are republicans. brown is facing similar situations at other candidates across the country are. democrats are somewhat dispirited right now, so we will see if he can rouse them. >> thank you for your time. for more information on campaign 2010, code to our website, c- span.org/politics. host: on the screen right now is
congressman dan lundgren of california, representing the third district. he is in his eight terms of the house. he was in earlier, left for a few years, and is back. he is a lawyer by profession, a graduate of notre dame. he served as the state's treasurer and california attorney general from 1991 through 1999. thank you for being here. it has been one week since the house republicans released their pledge. what has it done for the party? >> it is -- guest: it is the process that has brought us up here that is just as important as the pledge. not only us members individually in the town halls, as well as eletownhalls, including
setting up websites. we are reflecting the thought of the american people. with all of that, we were able to come up with our pledge to america. if you read the document, you would understand why some of the phrases are in there. that is what we heard from the american people. it connected us with a commitment to carry through on those things that we have been listening to, those things that we made commitments to when we were out with our constituents. host: i just read a reporter who had gone through the solicitation entries on your web site. the reporter said only one idea came directly from visitors.
guest: a lot of the things that people suggested, we have been react -- we have been talking about. it is not that we are not listening to the american people. we were presenting ideas and getting the reaction of the american people. one thing i can tell you is, the report did not come from the people, but the reflection of what they had to say is in there. and i helped write the health- care part. that has nothing to do with health care but everything to do with the imposition of a new burden on business. anyy have to file 1099's time they engage in a business practice that is more than $600,000. so no every business has to calculate -- now every business how to calculate transactions above that price. if you want to minimize the
number of 1099's you are filing to the government, you do not go to your local hardware store or restaurant. that is one of the big issues that you find among the employers of america. that is a specific provision in our pledge to america. i am pleased the inc. one of my bills. did the bill come from the people? no, i introduced it in april, and their response -- absolutely. this is an unnecessary burden on the american people. if the government believes everybody cheats, then basically, you have to tell on your neighbor. one of the things that i think is important in this concept is we need the trust of the american people. an american government that does
not trust the american people will not work. we are trying to say that we are going to be different. we will also be different from the republicans, last time around, but this is our pledge to the american people, what we would do right now. we will stay here until the election to vote on these things, rather than waiting for a lame duck session. staying with your pledge, the wrath from the mainstream -- host: staying with your pledge, the rap from the mainstream media is it is short on reduction measures. this is david hart, economics colorado -- column. he writes --
guest: with all due respect, i do not usually use "the new york times" as a gauge of what people are sitting back home. you will see very specifically that we will go back to 2008 numbers for not discretionary spending -- for discretionary spending which does not involve dispense, homeland security, or at this point in time, the
entitlement programs. they have to be dealt with separately. democrats are already criticizing us for that. this will mean for this and that program. what i would do, i would go to a system where we could start from ground zero for every element of the government. right now, what happens is, you use as the baseline for the new year spending would you have already spent. here is a dirty secret in washington that is not reflected in that period when we say we are going back to 2008 numbers, that means pre-bailout. when you have a stimulus in a crisis, you see an accelerated amount of spending for a short period of time. and the crisis is over, it goes down. when they have done is,
stimulative spending, increasing the cost of the government, and then they use that as the base line going forward. we are saying, let's go back to 2008 and start examining. i would also require every agency of government to prioritize every function of government that they have. it could be 1000. when you talk about cutting, what you do is you start cutting those things that have the least priority. we do that in our family of five, we do not do it here. the third thing, we would actually adopt a budget, for the first time that the budget act was passed in the 1970's, the democratic leadership decided we would not pass a budget in the house of representatives. ask the average person, are you going to get spending under control if you refuse to have a
budget? in my home state of california, we are now at the longest stage of not having a budget. that is different from the federal document, the actual spending authorization and appropriation. this is a blueprint on how we will spend. it sets up a context, if you bring a spending bill to the floor, and if it is over than the number contained in the budget adopted by the congress, any member of congress is empowered to make a point of order and say that this is out of order. we do have a process where you can wave a budget point of order, but you can vote on it. people are being irresponsible. this was a decision made by the democratic leadership. for get that i do not accept the criticisms of my democratic colleagues when they are asking us to be more specific.
we have been more specific on just those three things that they have -- then they have. host: let's take our first call. middletown, new jersey. bonnie. democrat line. caller: talking about responsibility in the budget, how many of those large expenditures, when you had both houses and the white house, were offered? the truth is, we have been hearing you as you go, but your remedy for our situation is the same old, same old that got us into this situation. the congressman from new jersey said the last 10 years of tax policy? no, the last 30 years. proof of the matter is, fortune
400 -- which i am sure you are aware of. they do give large contributions. 100 of those 400 came by their money by working hard, entrepreneurialism? no, they inherited it. as theodore roosevelt said clearly in his national speech, it is labor that enables capitalism, not the other way around. guest: i wondered how long it would be before we heard the lament of those who wish to engage in class warfare. that is not going to get us anywhere. we could go through the statistics were the highest percentage of the people, top 2%
pay 40% of the taxes, the top 10% pay 80% of the taxes. we do have a regressive tax code. we are not arguing that. we are asking, at what point in time, does the tax code become such that it inhibits innovation, creativity, risk taking? there are two ways where the government can get 0 revenue. one way is to tax at 0%, another is to tax 100%. unless people want to work for free. the challenge for the government is to find the sweet spot. where does it make the most sense for you can get the amount necessary to do what government needs to do, and at the same time, not discourage people from work, from investment, from taking risk. 30 years ago, we argued about whether we should radically
change our economic system and follow what japan was doing. they were known as the national industrial policy. the government would decide where the money goes. sort of like the head of the afl-cio is talking about now. the government makes a decision as to who should be the winners at the starting line. let's say, japan in that regard, here are four companies that we believe should get the capital. in the u.s., we have many start- ups, some are huge, some are small. we won them all to try their idea. if you are starting in america, you know chances of your new business are against you. 7% of new businesses fail within two years. so how do you encourage people to go to the starting line when
they know that seven out of 10 times they will fail? is that a better system than japan? yes, because at the end of the line, 30 of those businesses will succeed. but in order to keep people at the starting line risking their capital, knowing that they will probably lose, you have a payoff at the end that is large enough to encourage them. if the government appreciates that so much where there is no encouragement, you lose these new ideas. it is like the olympics. do you think we would have had as many world records set if we did not give gold medals? maybe we should just give participation awards. he won a dynamic, creative economy that creates -- you want a dynamic, creative economy that creates jobs.
you want to be able to create the jobs at the beginning of that continuing. in other words, for young people, if you look at europe, they are creating jobs for young people, so they are entering the job market on a full-time basis much later than here in the u.s. we have benefited from the dynamism of getting young people involved in our work force, along with those who want to stay longer. my concern is, as government works, we not make the mistake of excepting the european, a socialist democracy model, where frankly, young people will be discouraged that they would be otherwise. the idea of class warfare -- i do not think that solves any problems. host: seattle. michelle, republican line. caller: it seems like congress
is aware that outsourcing has contributed to the country's demise. i would like to know why 10,000 jobs at airbus are at risk because it may go to france? guest: there is a big dispute over the air force contract, whether it should go to airbus, boeing. if you recall, there was a bid challenge that was brought forth by boeing, and they won that challenge, so it went out again. so is the u.s. going to grant it to boeing or to this consortium? it would be dominated by a
european consortium. we have to see what happens there. we can stand up to the competition. i think boeing can do an excellent job here, so let's see what happens. my home town, long beach, that was the site of mcdonnell douglas. purchased them, of course. i see what you are talking about when you say that we have lost the industrial base. in california, we lost four of those kinds of workers than any other state. we have to determine what is essential to be made in the united states, from a national security standpoint, and what other areas is it a corporate for us to have alliances with other countries in terms of building some of these things. that is a distinction that needs to be made. but i will not give up on going
to compete here. i think they are in good position to compete here. -- boeing to compete here. host: a tiwtter from a viewer -- twitter from a viewer -- guest: i am not in support of that. right now, you can be a member of congress and still be on your parents' health care plan. we need to make it easy for young people to have health care on their own. also, the impact of that is to raise the cost of the insurance policies their parents have had in the past because now they are covering someone beyond age is that they did before. i think that is an interesting picture. you can be a member of the house of representatives, presumably smart and responsible enough to head the decisions of the
country, but at the same time, we do not think you are responsible enough to go out and purchase your own health care. host: what about lifetime caps? guest: that is something that we have to deal with precisely. just as when you are dealing with -- the one that i hear more about -- pre-existing conditions. . .
host: atlanta is next for dan lungren. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a quick question. i keep hearing the words -- the american people. is it just your district? just your constituency? can you tell me that? the other question i have is -- will you except social security when you meet that age? guest: with respect to excepting social security, i will not take it early, if that is what you are talking about. i will wait until i qualify for the aged that i am. it goes up every couple of
years depending on your birthday. host: i think that the question had to do with the debt, that was the implication. guest: i have never heard of that proposal for. i will support those things that will make the social security system viable, let me put it that way. who do i represent, the first part of a question, i am from the third district in california. i am elected from the 3rd district of california and i owe a special allegiance to the people elect me. but every day i am referred to as the congressman from california. i recognize that my votes impact everyone in my state. finally, i am a member of the u.s. house of representatives. i realize that my obligation is to make decisions as best as i can determine them for the
betterment of my country, which is important. at times he might vote in a way that is not popular with your district at the moment because you believe it is the right thing to do. i think i owe it to my constituents to be transparent. to communicate with them as to where i am voting and also communicate with them before i vote so that i understand the impact of my vote on those people that have elected me. i am not a weathervane. rather i think i have an obligation to understand how my votes impact everyone in my district and in the country. particularly to have that two way communication with my constituents. transparency is extremely important in government if for no other reason than it builds trust or confidence in the system. sometimes i believe that some
people are afraid to tell hall meetings, will not say what they do back in washington, d.c., which to me is destructive of the bond of trust that is essential to a governing democratic republic. host: front page of " wall street journal" this morning -- 71% of republicans describe themselves as tea party supporters, saying that they had a favorable view of the movement. what is happening to your party? guest: you have to realize that there are a number of different key parties. i would describe them in general this way. these are good, average, everyday americans, most of whom have not been involved in politics in a deep sense in the past, but have been compelled
because of what they have seen. in my district, before we saw it across the nation, june of last year i had a town hall meeting. i got word that the permanent obama campaign for america was sending out messages in the network to come to my town hall, to make me support obamacare. it was not difficult to find them, they were all wearing the same t-shirts. but they were outnumbered in my district by people that were not organized. i know the usual suspects in my district that come to my town hall meetings. this was a whole new cast of characters and it was interesting to watch because as the organized obama supporters started to talk about health care, these people responded saying that that is not what we agreed to.
it was one thing after another. and thousands of people where i usually have hundreds, people are coming to my meetings. they are carrying copies of the constitution. i had never seen that in any years i had been involved since i was a little kid. they are not brand new copies. you can tell they have been opened, red, and look that. they will ask questions about the constitution. they will question the justification. i find that refreshing. i think it is wonderful that people are really concerned. i have also, never in my life, her the use of the word freedom as often.
i would finish the town hall meeting with 300 people. one little woman came up to me, she was gray-haired and older. she had tears in her eyes and she started physically tumbling i came to this country to escape down communism and i am afraid that the freedom by looking for will not be here for my children or grandchildren. those are the people that i see coming to my meetings. they are not radicals or racially insensitive, they are not trying to get something from someone else. these are people that are truly
concerned about the future of this nation. i think that that is a wonderful development in the political process. host: mark, republican line. caller: as far as specific cuts, i would like to see the republicans look at departments like the department of education, who over the last 48 years has flat line as far as test scores go. i think we have spent $110 billion on the education department over the last 48 years. why not get rid of that and replace it with something more responsive to the students?
second of all, i would like to get involved with class warfare. i would like to see people get more money back then they pay in taxes. why not propose that you cannot get more money back and you have put into the system? thank you. guest: let me talk about education, because you mentioned that. it is one of the great questions of life and politics, culture in this country. congress dominated by the democrats, with the assistance of the president, eliminated the voucher program for the schoolchildren of the district of columbia. previously one of the most dysfunctional previous sets -- dysfunctional school systems in america. and yet, when we saw the numbers of parents that wanted to sign their children up exceeded the number of vouchers available, they closed it down.
now, look, the president has every right to send this child where we want to go to school. the private school that some of the children from the inner city of washington, d.c. were going to through the program, i do not understand why when we become members of congress or reside in the white house, we suddenly make a distinction between the feelings we have for our children and their education in our ability to make the decisions for the right, best school for them, but when we talk about it as a system we say that we cannot do it. i would say that we would do far better to assist the educational improvement of our children, with vouchers in charter schools, through innovation and parents, a greater say in the decisions of their school children. we talk about all of the money
in washington, d.c., but it seems to me that maybe one of the things we do with a department of education, if you do not do these things in your schools, you will not get the money that you relied on in the past. start with an examination of every single department in the government's, put them on a zero based budgeting system. they have to justify the first dollar. and when we had a deficit this year of $1.30 trillion, 1000 $300 billion that we did not have, it will not come down on me. it will not come down on you, sir. it will come down on our children and grandchildren. if we keep spending the way that
we are now, every warning that the federal government sees, they will be required to spend $1 billion to service the debt in interest before we can spend one dime for a child in school, a soldier in the field, a dime to keep the capital opened. this just cannot happen. host: david, pennsylvania. please turn down the volume. caller: i would like to make a comment, then i would like to ask a question. i am 62 and i have retired. when i worked, i worked for 15 years, 50-60 hours each week.
when i made the extra money, naturally my taxes went up. i have seen on the television with the owners of the los angeles dodgers made something like $660 million last year and paid no taxes. what is the gop midterm election strategy involving tax structures to have the super- rich pay more in taxes? guest: if someone made $600 million in taxes, he is violating the law. through your exemptions, credits, deductions, you figure out what you pay. if you do not pay anything you have to go to the minimum alternative tax. basically taking those other things out. look, i do not know the details, but i know that if you make that kind of money in your not paying
taxes, you are not following along. host: would you agree that there are tax shelters available to the very rich dead people on straight wages do not get? guest: there are all kinds of things in the tax code, that is why we need a simplified tax code. the idea that you create a system where you can artificially raise tax rates that people can get beneath by going into various non-economic activities does not make sense. john kennedy pointed that out when he wanted us to cut taxes across the board. you have to streamline the system so that people are not putting their funds in economic activity. we do not get the taxes in that regard.
expanding capital to surround our workers. there was that color the called about capital and labor, the fact of the matter is that in this new global low economy if our workers are going to be able to compete globally, we must surround them with the best capital-intensive equipment, software, so that they will have the capacity to help produce workers in other countries, even know they're making less wages. that is how we say ahead. the creativity of the american people. the risk-taking, adventures that are not automatically guaranteed to succeed. a couple of years ago i went to china to examine how they were
doing in their education system with science, technology, engineering, mathematics. we visited a number of schools, universities, technical institutes, a number of their high-tech centers. the general feeling was that we do pretty well with our schools through grade six and they do better in those categories from grade 6 to grade 12. everyone agrees that our universities of the best, that is why they come here. it was interesting, they said that you americans -- it is your creativity. they said that they could not match the creativity. i wanted to be politically polite so i did not say that if they got rid of communism it might help, but they recognize that there was something about the american culture that encouraged people to take risks, think outside of the box. that is what keeps us ahead. it must keep us ahead in the future.
when i look at tax laws and regulatory policy, i do not look at this as if i will go after that guy because he makes more money than i do, buy it look at it in terms of having a system that will give people the capacity to dream beyond their dreams, give them new ideas. cell phones, blackberry, iphone, ipad, no one thought of these things 30 years ago. hundreds of thousands of people are working there. what is the ipad of 20 years from now? i do not know. government does not now -- does not know. we need americans taking risks on their ideas. i would like my idf to be a product that people are going to use. that is why i get excited about
it, i am afraid it times that we forget that side of government. and that will be debilitating to our ability to create jobs. my children and grandchildren, hopefully they will have better. host: david, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been practicing as a cpa for 20 years. we have an old saying that someone with an unlimited budget will always exceed it. i would submit to you that congress has always exceeded it. my question is, when the ways and means chairman is leaving
income of his rental property from the virgin islands -- one of my clients had a solution for the budget crisis, $50,000 below 50,000, in, -- the income stays the same. 60,000 with a 6% cut. $70,000, all of the way up the line. i appreciate your efforts. guest: thank you for the call. edward bennett williams said that when he fired george allen. then he gave him an unlimited budget and he exceeded it, i guess you could say that that is what congress does. we should have a budget, we should be held responsible for what we do. there is a difference between a tax cut in spending. if you do not understand the difference, equaling them out
and somewhat, meaning that you get to keep the money in your pocket, the government spends less money. if they are equal, you have to assume that the government has the right to take the money out of your pocket. ted kennedy, tax expenditures, the government does not have a right your money, you do. we are supposed to be a self- governing country. it seems to me that that gets mixed up with the respective clients, they run into trouble right across the bottom of their tax papers. guest: tony, democratic line. -- host: tony, democratic line.
caller: my father told me that as long as you are working, and that gentleman is so knowledgeable on how to get us out of that, what is he doing for california? guest: first of all, if you are running a deficit this year, 1000 $300 billion, you cannot sustain that for a long period of time. the first thing to do is to recognize the problem and the second thing to do is recognize responsibility, setting out a plan that moves us in the direction of correcting the problem. take a look at congressman ryan from wisconsin. paul ryan, his website. i think it is called the american road map.
it sets out an entire view of how we would act to get to a bypass towards a balanced budget. it also talks about how we save the entitlement programs. there are changes that have to be made. he suggests that have nothing to do with people 55 and older. he wants to engage in a conversation about how to reform the system so that those programs do not fall off a cliff. i would ask you this, if you are serious about this, do not accept everything he has as gospel. telos in the congress would you agree with that can disagree with. he has at least taken a long- term view to say how we get to fiscal sustainability, making sure that our kids will have the opportunity for those jobs that you and i were talking about. how do we make sure that those
entitlement programs of the future will exist? you have to take it as a whole. even say that i do not like this or that, or you can say that this is not worth the tradeoff and that we have to do what paul ryan has done. we are encouraged to look at the system to present proposals and allow ourselves the opportunity to present our grandchildren, every generation has given to their children a better standard of living. we run the risk if we do not face the problems we have now, but the risk of handing off to our children and grandchildren lesser prospects for standards of living.
i do not want to do that. host: congressman, thank you very much for being here. guest: thank you. host: the final segment of the morning, a policy question. there is a debate going on about whether genetically modified salmon should be entered and we will learn more about what that means for us and policy issues with our final guest in a moment. rnal correspondent is with us, tony mauro. nice to hear from you. the supreme court announced more cases for its docket on monday. when you look at this list of new cases, what do you see? guest: there are some interesting cases involving
corporate privacy in which all -- in which at&t declares privacy rights, a hot button issue about individual rights that come up in the citizens united case. other than that there are no big cases, it just adds to what the court was scheduled to hear arguments in this fall. guest: in the -- host: in some of the cases added, elena kagan recused yourself, bringing the number up to? guest: 25 out of the 54, almost half. a significant number. more than most incoming
justices -- it comes up with new justices, especially if they have been on the appeals court. sometimes their own decisions from below, to the supreme court and they cannot sit on those. fort elena kagan the problem was different. she was solicitor general of the united states before becoming a justice. she reviewed many of the cases in the petitions that went to the supreme court. she made decisions on whether to file briefs. there is enough involvement in the earlier cases that she felt she needed to be recused and did not want to convey the idea that the cases he was going to be hearing as a justice she had already prejudged as solicitor
general. host: so, the number will decline as she gets farther away from her term as solicitor general? guest: that is right, they will be released now that she has left the office and there will not be a problem in months ahead. host: announced yesterday a new policy regarding public release of arguments where for the first time ever the week that they are heard that they will be posted on the supreme court web site on friday. what is behind this? what can you tell us about the people that follow the cord and the views on what they know? guest: generally there has been a lot of pressure from congress about bringing cameras in to the supreme court. as you know, c-span has been
active in this. the supreme court does not allow cameras. over the years the court has taken lesser steps, incremental, along the path towards cameras in the hopes of staving off pressure from kelp -- from congress. that is the motivation. this new plan does sound like an improvement to the audio or oral arguments within a few days of their occurring. selectively allowed for the same day release of audio, helping to supplement like a daily news report. when it comes out on a friday for an oral argument that
occurred on monday, there's not much news for the news media. it is old hat by then. it is a mixed bag. i think that the news media are disappointed by at. the court has really pitched this as a boon for the public in general in terms of hearing what the court is doing, but not immediately. host: for the news media, two steps forward, one step back? guest: that has been the case for many decades. host: the red mass is this sunday, correct? guest: that is right. host: all of those traditions taking place in the next couple of days. thank you for being here this morning.
guest: happy to do it. host: let me introduce you to the final guest of the morning, jaydee hanson is the senior policy analyst on genetics and cloning at the center for food safety. we will jump into this with modified salmon, because it has been in the news. what is this debate all about? guest: the company, bought a bounty, has engineered the salmon, taking the growth hormone from a chinook salmon, sticking it together with part of a gene from a fish called [unintelligible] taking the synthetic dna, gluing together, sticking it to the genome and workings of the cell,
making for a larger growth hormone. host: so, bigger salmon, faster? guest: ultimately they just road to market size faster. host: what is the process by which a product like this would get to market? guest: there is a disagreement about how it is being done. they adopted what i call the fiction that these genes are a drug for the animal. that they have nothing to do with humans, there just a drug for the animal. the problem with using the animal drug framework is that it is in the dark until they have a final meeting. meaning that people cannot look at the data, if there is bad day
could be a company secret. we do not think that is the way that the food and drug administration should have approached it. there are other things that they can do to develop novel food regulations rather than fitting entire salmon into a drug regulation. host: we are talking about genetically modified food with half of our left on "washington journal" this morning. overall, this debate over salmon is significant for what region? guest: is the first animal for human food that has been genetically engineered and there is a long line of other animals -- trial tilapia o, as well as a
pig in canada o engineered to be crowded together with less phosphorus. a cow that is resistant to mad cow disease. the bio-technology industry organization says that there are probably 20 animals in the pipeline. the problem is that this is a secret process and unless the company announces that they have replied to the food and drug administration, none of us know until the approval comes out. host: is your organization against genetically modified food? guest: we are concerned with the transparency, concerned that
things be well tested in humans if necessary before they are on the market. host: is it true that americans are eating more genetically modified food than any other nation in the world? guest: that is probably true. we do not have all of the data for china which might be a close competitor. host: what is the bulk of that modified food? guest: heavily subsidized crops. corn, soybeans, canola. those are the crops that are mostly in the market right now. other crops have been tried, supermarkets and fast-food chains, mostly things that are heavily processed that you are eating now that have genetic modifications.
host: have they been in the market long enough that we could study the health effects? guest: entirely. there is preliminary data that shows problems with some kinds of genetically modified foods. there are really two words. most of these plants in the market are what our office calls pesticide running plants. they are geared towards a company's particular pesticide. if these plants make more in the environment, that is a problem. the other time something has been pulled off the market, there were proteins in it that look like allergens, the fda had approved it for animals in the
human market. it was in tacos and other markets. host: genetically modified food has been a big debate in europe, perhaps less so in the united states. guest: in europe the grocery chains have been much more wary of genetically modified products. in maine is more of the grocery stores that will not buy it and put it out for their customers. host: let's hear your questions beginning in virginia beach. you are on the air. caller: i am concerned myself, this fish that we are using, some of us who have had allergies might be allergic to it.
guest: the concern for genetically engineered fish is that we do not know. the company has tested six-, as well as six others. dated two tests and the fda said that one of them was done so badly that you cannot count it. this is what i would expect to see in a high-school experiment, not an fda proposal. host: going back to the salmon and politics, yesterday marked baggage -- mark beggitch said that they were using the wrong policy for safety, when you look at these people from washington, alaska, oregon, these are all
big salmon fishing areas. you wonder if it is economic and commercial issues at heart. guest: having spoken to many of those fishermen, they are just furious the salmon might be confused with this other kind of genetic engineering product. they wanted labeled so that people can tell the difference. host: i have also read that there is a worry from fisherman the genetically altered fish will get into the mainstream and begin to produce a new kind of fish. is that an issue as well? guest: particularly in the atlantic areas, this is a big problem.
the company is using sterilization techniques on the fish, but they are only 90% successful. if only 300,000 fish get out, that is more fish than we have got in the connecticut river right now, so it could be a big problem. host: diana, republican line, good morning. get caller: i am concerned about what is coming into the food. we have antibiotics in so much of our food, the gulf hormone, people are paying the price in all of these different things, we are altering our foods now.
guest: actually, farm fish, ordinary farm fish, they use more antiviral propounded than any other food. what concerned me when i looked at the material that the fda distributed was that there was no data on whether this new fish is more or less antibiotics, which is something that we need to know before they are approved. host: this is from twitter -- guest: genetically modified is when you take a gene that does not exist in that plant type at all, taking it from a bacteria, taking it from another totally unrelated plants, taking it from an animal, you might put it into that animal.
something you cannot get through normal greeting the things that they are sticking to these plants and animals. host: tucson, arizona. guest: the things that you have seen with animals that have been modified to the end of making some kind of renewable fuel from their waste, only pertaining to modified foods. host: he is wondering if there's a process to create -- create renewable fuel from a waste of these animals. guest: i do not know if they are talking about creating a new renewable fuel from the waist of the animals. there is a laboratory in baltimore, md., that is a closed system that uses the waste from
fish to produce methane. the company has said that they are planning to use that in this genetically engineered fish. host: will you talk more about the enviropig that you mentioned earlier? guest: it has a fund is inserted into the pig to help them break down phosphorus. pigs do not naturally do that, you could not read them to do that. the reason that you want to do that, if you are crowding having million pigs together they produce a lot of waste and phosphorus is a big pollutants. it seems to me that this is not what the average person is looking for. they're looking for pigs that have not been has crowded closely together, free range it's a better price. but it does seem to work after a few generations, they do seem to
produce less phosphorus, but they still produce a lot of waste. host: for jaydee hanson, iowa, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: what is on your mind? caller: a lot of things about what i heard this morning. we have all kinds of cross contamination with people trying to raise corn that was not genetically manipulated. i was able to use the roundup herbicide and produce a cheaper, but there are people in the world trying to produce crops that are genetically modified. the pollen from our crops drifted over. if you move to a different location in you get fished in the environment, i do not know
how you keep control of the sting. guest: it is a difficult challenge of these fish get out. one of the problems is that they actually become sexually mature faster. they are bigger. dees of the big, early, adolescent fish that are always hungry, always wanting to breed. the company says that they are less able to last for a long time in the wild, but it does not take that long to actually breed with wild fish in the mix their genes with them. it will make the wilder stream weaker. host: this e-mail -- is far
raised genetically modified? guest: not yet. if the fda approves this without a label, you may not know soon. host: what is a far raised fish? guest: far raised fish, for the most part, is atlantic salmon, this genetically engineered salmon. raised mostly in hens. fish that has been ground up and processed into fish out. unfortunately, it does not have as much of the good stuff that you want in salmon. regular bar raised fish does not have as much good omega three fatty acids that you want. it has about 40% of what wild
salmon does. you have got a product that grows faster but gives you less of what you eat salmon for. host: is it possible to modify them so that they have more of the good stuff? guest: there is an operation trying to do that with pigs, but we have got to deal with what is coming forward right now. right now most of what is coming forward is genetically engineered animals, engineered to help the producer crowd more of them into a space so that the producer makes more money, not so that you are healthier. host: richard, democratic line. caller: why are they not testing this on animals first?
instead of human beings? guest: partly it is the choice, the strange choice that the food and drug administration made to could genetically engineered animals into a regime where they see that the animals affected is the genetically engineered salmon itself. many of the things i was concerned about, we know that less good animals generally get fed to our pets. there is no data at all about what happens when you feed this sale and your cat. if you are a meat producer, they eat a lot of fish, rejects might go to that industry and there is no data of that sort. the fda did not require it
either. host: jim, republican line, washington. caller: thank you for c-span. a comment here, there are several other fish that are engineered by he said, like the trout, them for sport fishermen to catch bigger fish. tigard muskie's are done over here to keep the predators down. they were supposed to be sterile, but there are tests where they are finding babies. it is getting to be a problem.
if they get out, we are in trouble. eating all the food just so that they can feed themselves. guest: the same sterilization techniques they're using with those of the same ones they're using with these. 98% is probably not good enough. host: we have got a lot of detail on this graphic on the screen, from the food and drug administration itself. listing the reasons why developing genetically engineered animals makes sense to produce pharmaceuticals -- makes sense --
host: so, the salmon we are talking about are the last part of the last line, more efficiently produced. guest: the genetically engineered animals that make drugs will at least have to go through trials in humans and most of the time will go through trials on animals first. today we are talking about genetically engineered animals for food. so far they have only approved one genetically engineered animal for pharmaceutical purposes. it was approved about one year ago. host: going back to the introduction of genetically modified products into the larger biosphere of, this viewer
has asked if the spread can be contained once introduced. once they get out, can they get brought back? guest of the food and drug administration is recommending that the fertile animals only be in canada, flying them to panama as a way of containing the genetic pollution or other kinds of pollution from the u.s.. host: offshore the industry. guest: in a way. the canadians working for the company like it. but in the environmental area and food safety they are asking a lot of the same questions as we are asking here.
the company says that they will put it in the u.s.. because the fda is recommending the first effort here in panama, then the company will probably put it somewhere in the u.s., closer to our market. there are real problems if you put it anywhere that can get out. if you put it anywhere where there are atlantic salmon, from new york city all the way to maine, you have got a serious environmental problem. the one fishery biologist on the committee looking for approval
said that the food and drug administration needs to do a full assessment of what it would be like to read the u.s.. host: if you just joined us, we're talking about genetically engineered food in the united states. this news tag is the possible introduction of the first genetically modified animals in the u.s.. westhaven, conn., robert, good morning. guest: i am just starting to get an idea about what is going on. -- caller: i am just starting to get an idea about what is going on. most people do not know what it means, modified foods. i was wondering, my understanding is that they are starting to do some studies
either on animals first, but if the question never comes up and they start working for words, if there is a problem or anything, but congress try it and see what happens. then we will have a better idea. i do not trust how they approve of certain medications from the general standing more understanding. i think that more should be put into the papers about what is happening and the concern. you hear very little, if anything, on it. i heard more in this program then from the papers for the last couple of years. host: thank you, robert. guest: the problem with using
congress is that they are not representative of the entire u.s. population. it is skewed towards older males, if anything. if there is a problem in this food, it will show up in children. it will show up in children with impaired immune systems. people with allergic reactions. can might not even give us the information scientifically that we want. our problem with the fda study is that the sample sizes are already too small. fish with more growth hormones
produce more of a kind of growth factor that some people think is implicated in some forms of cancer. the study that the company did is not sensitive enough to look at all of those questions and the important data on it. hard as it is to suggest that members of congress or the fda should eat this, what we really need is really good science before anything goes on the market. host: donald, independent line, good morning. caller: please do not hang up on me again. monsanto and roundup are in cahoots, genetically modifying stuff to sell their pesticide
products that are harming the earth's. if we did sensible planning, but let's talk about safety for a second. we are not sure what this is going to do for the safety of humans when we start to consume these things. we have had 5000 years of experience with canvas and it has killed no one. there is a war on that drug. they are afraid. they cannot profit from it. host: without getting into a debate about drug policy, what about that? guest: whether you are talking about plants or animals, you do
need independent testing. from the seed companies to use to be and still are pesticide companies, they are still using them for serious study by other people. the fda, in looking at this, we actually think that the fda should be doing its own tests. crunching some of the numbers again that the company provided , we do not really in any of these products have a way of looking at the plant or the fish as they are being raised commercially and how they will be used by people. host: the next call from --
comes from evanston, independent line. caller: without labels, people do not even know what they are eating. someone gets sick, there is a direct correlation between illness and what they are eating, you cannot prove it. that is number one. to rely on the fda to make sure that these genetically engineered fish are going to be safe for humans is almost laughable. i have never seen the fda really demand rigorous tests independently from companies in order to be sure, on a long-term basis, that these people are really going to be safe. we are talking about long-term tests. people do test accidentally and those people that find something wrong with genetically engineered seeds are harassed, their careers are threatened. their careers are threatened.